Drought‐stress and plant resistance affect herbivore performance and proteome: the case of the green peach aphid Myzus persicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae)

Little is known about the simultaneous effects of drought stress and plant resistance on herbivorous insects. By subjecting the green peach aphid Myzus persicae Sulzer to well‐watered and drought‐stressed plants of both susceptible and resistant peach (Prunus persica), the effects of both stressors on aphid performance and proteomics are tested. Overall, the influence of the water treatment on aphid performance is less pronounced than the effect of host plant genetic resistance. On the susceptible cultivar, aphid survival, host acceptance and ability to colonize the plant do not depend on water treatment. On the resistant cultivar, aphid survival and ability to colonize are higher on drought‐stressed than on well‐watered plants. A study examining the pattern of protein expression aiming to explain the variation in aphid performance finds higher protein expression in aphids on the drought‐stressed susceptible cultivars compared with the well‐watered ones. In the susceptible cultivar, the regulated proteins are related to energy metabolism and exoskeleton functionality, whereas, in the resistant cultivar, the proteins are involved with the cytoskeleton. Comparison of the protein expression ratios for resistant versus susceptible plants reveals that four proteins are down‐regulated in well‐watered plants and 15 proteins are down‐regulated in drought‐stressed plants. Drought stress applied to the susceptible cultivar induces the regulation of proteins in M. persicae that enable physiological adaptation to maintain an almost unaltered aphid performance. By contrast, for aphids on the resistant cultivar subjected to drought stress, the down‐regulation of proteins responds to an induced host susceptibility effect.     

Pulmonary Toxocariasis Mimicking Invasive Aspergillosis in a Patient with Ulcerative Colitis

A 45-year-old-male who had underlying ulcerative colitis and presented with fever and dry cough. Initially, the patient was considered to have invasive aspergillosis due to a positive galactomannan assay. He was treated with amphotericin B followed by voriconazole. Nevertheless, the patient deteriorated clinically and radiographically. The lung biopsy revealed eosinophilic pneumonia, and ELISA for Toxocara antigen was positive, leading to a diagnosis of pulmonary toxocariasis. After a 10-day treatment course with albendazole and adjunctive steroids, the patient recovered completely without any sequelae. Pulmonary toxocariasis may be considered in patients with subacute or chronic pneumonia unresponsive to antibiotic agents, particularly in cases with eosinophilia.